If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I fully understand that people are attracted based of someone's looks, as you said its a basic matter of biology. However, I no not have to accept those animal instincts, I refuse to put on a show to attract another mate. I am my own man, I will do what I want. If a women expects me to do X thing or else she will not be with me, then that is not someone I want to be with.

... that's how we find someone attractive before all else. being attracted to someone is because you biologically want to mix your genetic information with them (regardless of a person's sex). is a psychology thing...

anyway, the e-cigs are cool. i never smoked, well, only when i want to, which is like once every 3 years or something. so it's a rare picture to see. my friends started quitting and they all picked up e-cigs. now they smoke the e-cig or don't smoke anymore.

on a personal note, i don't like it when guys smoke. kissing them taste weird and their cum taste horrible too. i can tell if a guy smokes even if he hasn't smoked that day. if i can kiss him or... taste him, i can tell. well, other factors too. like how the hand naturally lays when holding a cigar/cigarette and more fun stuff.

... that's how we find someone attractive before all else. being attracted to someone is because you biologically want to mix your genetic information with them (regardless of a person's sex). is a psychology thing...

Why should I accept this though, people are naturally racist also according to psychological studies, even babies are racist.

Now, I digress, racism and sexual attraction are completely on different levels, but the point stands, just because something is natural does not mean it is ok. You are not only saying that I should not only accept it, but live my life by it. After all you are suggesting that I take time out of my day not to help myself, but instead to please others, why on Earth should I do that?

some people get addicted to cigars the same way someone can be addicted to cookies.... (lame example). but i mean, they believe themselves to be addicted.

also kirby. you're wrong. it's been proven in 2011 that the development of babies cannot be racist because their brains don't even function on that level. and in actuality, racism is learned. we become racist because we associate negative with patterns and we generalize. there are archetypes, but humans cannot be born racist to a specific race. babies are born with the potential to be racist in the same degree everyone is born to be a great pianist. they just need the time to learn and experience to become that... or in other words, it's taught/learned.

I remember watching a documentary where they gave a baby toys of all the same color, later that day they introduced a toy that was of a different color, the babies hated and refused to play with it. Not only that, but the babies enjoyed when the new toy was damaged, and if asked which toy was the bad toy and needed to be punished, they always choose the new and different one.

(disclaimer: race is a cultural and social construct, and has no basis in genetics or any tangible measuring method.)

i mean, this is true in many of ways actually. but it is obvious there is a clear genetic factor to race. look at a white person and then a black person to verify this theory. there is certainly a genetic difference between someone of european descent and someone of sub saharan african descent. or of indian descent and east asian descent.

"I'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
"What else?" said the secretary.

Well, yeah, there are distinct ethnic groups that express different phenotypes (slit eyes, blonde hair, etc.), but the genetic variation is a bit different. Caucasians and Asians are really just mix and matches of various African descendant, and there's so much variation that it's impossible to rigidly classify any "race". We also use social distinctions as more of an indicator of race than phenotype, generally choosing the less prestigious race. Barack Obama had a "white" mother and a "black" father, but we just call him black. Even if only your grandparent (or even great-grandparent) were black, you'll still end up being labelled as black, as long as your genes express themselves in a certain way. Perhaps pre-1900s, when people were more geographically disparate, racial distinction by phenotype made sense, since by all likelihood you did have two parents of the same ethnic background. But nowadays, there's so much mix-and-matching, and genes that racial phenotypes can vary so radically in expression, between even twins, so the classification is non-sensical.

there is a genetic factor, it is immeasurable because how someone looks can be changed with a tiny amount of genetic changes

take for example Europeans and Native Americans, genetically they have more in common than 2 Africans from maybe just a few hundred miles away from each other, the Africans might look very similar, but genetically they have been drifted for much longer than the European and Native America descendants

Um, that's not true at all. First of all, Native Americans are much more related to Asian ethnicities than Caucasians (we can trace this decent back through the measuring of ancient skull sizes), in fact they're about as far away as you can get from being white in terms of genetic potential. On top of that, African genes have in them the potential to become any race, and Caucasians and Asians actually have restrictions on their genes on what kind of phenotypes are expressed. It's the non-blacks who have "drifted", which is pretty common sense considering our ancestors moved out from Africa.

Anyways, this means it's entirely possible for a black parent to have a white kid, (and vice-versa in a few cases), making the whole concept of racial absolutes defunct.

Um, that's not true at all. First of all, Native Americans are much more related to Asian ethnicities than Caucasians (we can trace this decent back through the measuring of ancient skull sizes), in fact they're about as far away as you can get from being white in terms of genetic potential. On top of that, African genes have in them the potential to become any race, and Caucasians and Asians actually have restrictions on their genes on what kind of phenotypes are expressed. It's the non-blacks who have "drifted", which is pretty common sense considering our ancestors moved out from Africa.

I don't see what this has anything to do with what I posted. Also at no point did I say anything about Asians, all I pointed out is that native americans are more related to Europeans than some African groups to each other.